First co2 now they might say WATER exists? What is the world coming too? Now we KNOW the end is near! Preposterous.

_________________________
Member of DaJoGen MMA school under Dave Hagen and Team Chaos fight team under Denver Mangiyatan and Chris Toquero, ran out of Zanshin Martial Arts in Salem Oregon: http://www.zanshinarts.org/Home.aspx,

Besides this thread has never been about reason, I gave up that hope several pages ago.

Global warming has never been about "reason" but rather about a crow bar of redistribution. I currently do alternative fuels research using beta mirrors to cleave water into hydrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide. I've consulted at NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) and NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research). I did my post doc in physics, my Ph.D. in physical chemistry (University of Florida under Russ Drago), MS in math (University of Colorado), BS in chemistry and a BS in fisheries biology. I'm a board certified industrial toxicologist as well as a certified auditor for Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act, Super Fund and SARA Title II among others. That is my Curriculum Vitae in brief. So I guess I will fit into the “unreasonable” class when I say, point blank, that this whole concept of a “scientific consensus” thing is a farce! The anthropogenic forcing of global warming amounts to between 2% to 7%, if even that much! And mathematically the models are about as flawed as anything I’ve looked at. They depend on, and require multiple positive feed backs that have actually turned out to be negative feed backs. Such things as water vapor, which is the most “potent” greenhouse gas there is. The models base “their” prognostications on as the earth warms, water vapor will increase, form thin Sirius type clouds which allow for solar radiation incidence, and then “trap” thermal recoil. However, what actually happened is that deep clouds formed, shielding solar input and transferring thermal recoil by convection. Hence, it resulted in a net cooling affect. I can go on and on about these sorts of things but would suggest that you read the works Dr. Sally Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory), Dr. Patrick Michaels (Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Virginia), Dr. Jen Oxalson (NCAR), just to point out a few.

I would also ask you to consider the following - 48 of the 50 states have state climatologist. Fully 80% of them offer that anthropogenic forcing of the current warming trend is very minimal. Now I can go on about this to the point of nausea. I can recount how funding has been removed for research that didn’t “fit” the status quo. Or how the president of the National Academy strongly warned our members against “slanting” our research for the sake of funding. Or the fact that most members of the Geophysical Union find anthropogenic forcing to be minimal, if not laughable. We could also get into the projections of how the current warming trend will increase global food production, and therefore the prosperity of even the poorest of the poor. We could also talk about the economic consequences and I can refer you to studies by the likes of Edward Prescott and Fin Kydland (Nobel Laureates) and Brian Arthur (Professor Emeritus in Economics, Stanford). We could also talk about the growing evidence that the temperature began to rise prior to an increase in CO2 levels. Wait a second, effect precedes cause, anybody else have a problem with this?

There is no consensus, and in fact, more and more of us are becoming skeptical because frankly, the science behind anthropogenic forcing is some of the worst I’ve ever seen!

everything humans are doing ecologically short and long-term is fine and the recommendation is to do nothing...is that the advice of your PhD breakfast club?

He is not advising anything, he is merely pointing out that the empirical evidence linking global warming to our pollution is not strong or conclusive. This is not new or radical info, its just not pushed hard by the media because crisis sells papers and is good for ratings, and not pushed by governments because they can use 'the environment' as an excuse to levy 'green taxes' and further their own ambitions.